Florida: Recognition of same-sex
marriages (SSMs)

Part 11:2014-AUG:
Review of Florida polling data on SSM.
Federal District Court rules in
favor of marriage
equality.

Review of Florida polling data on marriage by same-sex couples from 2004-MAR to 2014-APR:

The following polls sampled public opinion in Florida for and against marriage by same-sex couples. 1 Data from the constitutional amendment vote of 2008 are added. They show reasonably good agreement with the public opinion polls at the time.

"Florida voters support 56 - 39 percent allowing same-sex couples to marry, with 57 - 39 percent support among women and 55 - 40 percent backing among men. Support is 65 - 31 percent among Democrats and 64 - 30 percent among independent voters, with Republicans opposed 64 - 32 percent. Every age group supports same-sex marriage except voters over 65 years old, who are divided with 45 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed. 3

Various national polls during 2014 show support for marriage by same-sex couples at about 55% -- a close match to the level of support in Florida as if 2014-APR.

It would appear that if the 2008 Constitutional Amendment vote were repeated today, it would receive about 40% support and 55% opposition; it would fail to pass.

The Tampa Bay Times conducted an unscientific "Florida Insider Poll" among 131 "... veteran political professionals, activists, and others closely involved in the process." Most were Republicans. The Times reported on 2014-AUG-01 that they:

"... found a whopping 87 percent of the 131 savvy Florida politicos predict that within five years Florida will no longer ban same-sex marriage.

"It's only a matter of time,'' said one Republican. "While Florida is still socially conservative to a large degree, this is the civil rights issue of our time and to continue to fight against it goes against the philosophy of live-and-let-live and personal freedom.''

Agreed another Democrat: "Gay marriage is the fastest changing social issue of our generation. It will be legal all over the country in a hell of a lot less than five years'." 4

The Advocate -- a pro-equality group -- describes the ruling as being in

"... a consolidated case stemming from two lawsuits, including one filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, representing eight married same-sex couples, a lesbian widow seeking recognition of her legal marriage to her wife on her spouse's death certificate, and SAVE, a South Florida LGBT advocacy organization.

The second case was filed by private Jacksonville attorneys on behalf of two same-sex couples — one who wanted to marry in Florida, and one who sought recognition of their legal marriage performed elsewhere." 6

Judge Robert L. Hinkle issued his decision which is essentially identical to four previous rulings by county courts. He based his decision on the now very familiar grounds that the state Constitution's Amendment 2 ban, passed by voters in 2008, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He wrote:

"When observers look back 50 years from now, the arguments supporting Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage, though just as sincerely held, will again seem an obvious pretext for discrimination. Observers who are not now of age will wonder just how those views could have been held. ..."

"The undeniable truth is that the Florida ban on same-sex marriage stems entirely, or almost entirely, from moral disapproval of the practice. ..."

"The institution of marriage survived when bans on interracial marriage were struck down, and the institution will survive when bans on same-sex marriage are struck down. Liberty, tolerance, and respect are not zero-sum concepts. Those who enter opposite-sex marriages are harmed not at all when others, including these plaintiffs, are given the liberty to choose their own life partners and are shown the respect that comes with formal marriage. Tolerating views with which one disagrees is a hallmark of civilized society." 5

He also wrote:

"This order holds that marriage is a fundamental right as that term is used in cases arising under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, that Florida's same-sex marriage provisions thus must be reviewed under strict scrutiny, and that, when so reviewed, the provisions are unconstitutional."

Sponsored link:

The plaintiffs in the consolidated case involved:

9 same-sex couples who were married out-of-state and want Florida to recognize their married status,

One engaged same-sex couple who want to marry in Florida, and

One lesbian widow.

Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) based her defense of the marriage ban on the fact that same-sex couples, by themselves, cannot procreate. The same argument has been used in many other federal courts and has regularly been rejected by them.

Judge Hinkle commented on Bondi's defense, writing:

"Same-sex couples, like opposite-sex couples and single individuals, can adopt, but same-sex couples cannot procreate. Neither can many opposite-sex couples. And many opposite-sex couples do not wish to procreate." 6